and I stick with my recommendations of books from both zen and tibetan teachers..as you are a physicist. I ahve another recommednation -- a book by Chagdud Rinpoche called "Gates to Buddhist Practice" -- as a physicist you might enjoy his discussions of absolute and relative reality.

[QUOTE=Wendy87;181850]Hi! I'm new 'round here.You'll see I've been reading about Buddhism for 2 years but I've a bug doubt. I just don't know which school suites me the best. I'll tell what I believe in, and what I'm like and I'd be really gratefull if you could help me:

I am atheist.I just don't believe in any supernatural being.
I'm into a lesbian relationship.
I'm a physicist.
I believe that after out death we rebirth in another person or another living thing, but we don't notice it, that is, we live as a person...then we die..and suddenly we're living as another person ut we don't remember anything.
I think Buddha's saying were really interesting but I don't see him a god, just as a god person.

What school do you thing that suites me the best?

Thank you very much for reading me.[/QUOTE]

Hi Wendy87,

Regarding Tibetan Buddhism:

I found this article by The Dalai Lama about compassion and the Individual.

[QUOTE=ronnewmexico;214246]T, I will not dispute my observations on atheists, as I have qualified them as personal and thusly not really debateable. You mentioned a personal observation of sorts as regards your personal AA experience, I mention my personal observation. Neither are by nature of being personal are able to be qualified.

As regards dieties and what is taught, it has been my experience in Tibetan Buddhism Lamas will quite often tailor their teachings to the wants and applicability of the students they are interacting with. If a Lama perceives a student being culturally adapted to a theistic frame of mind, they will teach with such under consideration. That is my observation. To drive such theistically affirmed students from Buddhism by stateing things which are contradictory to their beliefs may pose a problem for the student, and lead them away from compassion. So for one firmly grounded in theism, dieties may seem by teaching to be inherantly existant beings, but only to ones so inclined. This in our culture is in the far far majority but that does not suggest that is the only way such things are taught, nor that it is the way things are generally understood to be.

This however does not suggest that one known to be a atheist by the teacher will receive a similiar teaching. In Tibetan Buddhism the Buddha tailored his teachings to the group to which they were given and as differing levels of understanding were present, differing levels of teaching were given; basically conventional and ultimate. Lamas to my experience teach in the same manner. So what one receives may not be what another receives.

As per example my practice though a very small one of little understanding is not Dzogchen but Mahamudra. In such I find stated things as....."All one's mental clinging to the concept of malicious spirits is but the manifestation of one's own mind. Apparent figures of gods or spirits that might appear before one are purely an inner sensation that has arisen from the minds clinging to the very thought of them." written by Takpo Tashi Namgyal in the forteen hundreds I think. A book used as a core teaching of sorts by some for the practice of Mahamudra.

He goes on to equate that ignorance is the source of the deluded apearances of serpent-gods and earth protectors. The presence of hatred, desire and other defilements in the practicioner, being the source of such delusions.

As regards diety yoga the Dali Lama states in part in his book Dzochen..."Taking the divine being as the focus of meditation, they then reflect again upon its empty nature. So here within ones meditative state of mind you find meditation on the deity's body, combined with the apprehension of its empty nature. Both deity yoga and understanding of emptiness are complete and present within a single cognitive event of the mind."

Which affirms my statement; dieties, the concept of such, are used as a means to a end, understanding of mind. Nothing suggests they are inherantly existant beings. They are in fact stated to be empty; like us. As are any gods or demons.

Much was adopted from theistic cultural derivitives into Buddhism, as Bon in Tibetan Buddhism and Brahamism into Indian Buddhism initially. The context or how they are present or refered to, and utilized, is way way differing from their inceptive derivitives.

So I reaffirm a atheist could very well find Tibetan Buddhism a fit. But I do not state Tibetan Buddhism is in any manner superior to other forms of Buddhism. It is my choice but may well others find other Buddhism or other religion a better fit.
Theists generally should stay with theistic religions is my belief, but that is not applicable to this person.

According to Wikipedia, Mahamudra is a Buddhist method of direct introduction to the nature and essence of mind, aka Buddha-Nature, and the practice of stabilizing the accompanying transcendental realization.

I received the Mahamudra Transmission from a Tibetan Lama in 1992. The basic practice for Mahamudra is Samatha-Vipassana Meditation, Tranquility and Insight Meditation, which has been my practice in Daily Meditation since.

Mahamudra practice is very advanced. But, as with all Buddhist practices, it adheres to the Four Noble Truths, which include the Noble Eightfold Path, in the three categories of Sila, Samadhi, Panna.

According to the training that I have received, actual Buddhist practice begins with the development of Sila. Since Mahamudra is a Buddhist practice, it, too, begins with the preliminary practice and development of Sila. At this early stage of practice, the meditator will not have realised the non-existence of the ego, the personality.

According to U Maung Nu, the practice of Sila is the control of the body and mouth to refrain from doing and speaking what is sinful.

“Steps to take
1. A person who wants to observe Sila must as a first step, sit respectfully before the image or the picture of the Buddha. If there is a monk, do so before him. Then he must do obeisance three times, saying, 'I do obeisance to the Buddha, to the Dhamma and to the Sangha.' To do obeisance in the Buddhist tradition, one must touch the floor with his forehead, palms, elbows and knees.
2. After the 1st step, with two palms touching each other on the forehead, he must say three times "Namo tassa, Bhagavato, Arahato, Sammasambuddhassa " (I worship the Buddha, who deserves the adoration of the highest among human beings, Devas and Brahmas and who knows the way to the end of suffering without guidance from anybody.)”

The reason that I am quoting from a Theravadin Buddhist source is because my Guru is an Abhidhamma Scholar and an Upasika (Female Householder) of the Theravada School of Buddhism and a disciple of the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa of the Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. My Guru is qualified to Teach Mahamudra.

"A relationship with a teacher is strongly stressed, and in the former Tibet these texts would not have been available except through a teacher and without having completed preliminary practices. Some parts of the transmission are done verbally and through empowerments and "reading transmissions". In particular the teacher directly Points out the Mind of the Student."

[QUOTE=Wendy87;181850]Hi! I'm new 'round here.You'll see I've been reading about Buddhism for 2 years but I've a bug doubt. I just don't know which school suites me the best. I'll tell what I believe in, and what I'm like and I'd be really gratefull if you could help me:

I am atheist.I just don't believe in any supernatural being.
I'm into a lesbian relationship.
I'm a physicist.
I believe that after out death we rebirth in another person or another living thing, but we don't notice it, that is, we live as a person...then we die..and suddenly we're living as another person ut we don't remember anything.
I think Buddha's saying were really interesting but I don't see him a god, just as a god person.

What school do you thing that suites me the best?

Thank you very much for reading me.[/QUOTE]

Maybe classifying yourself as atheist isnt the best thing for you. Since you seem to be open to the ideas of reincarnation and things, which make great assumptions about the afterlife. Perhaps you are more accuratly a agnostic or maybe pagan or something...you just might not be a fan of the Christian God. or one higher power that seems to rain on your parade.

I dont know if im right about all that, but consider that anyway.

As far as what school you should belong to. Idk , are you sure its buddhism youre really into?

Maybe classifying yourself as atheist isnt the best thing for you. Since you seem to be open to the ideas of reincarnation and things, which make great assumptions about the afterlife. Perhaps you are more accuratly a agnostic or maybe pagan or something...you just might not be a fan of the Christian God. or one higher power that seems to rain on your parade.

Given the Buddha's rejection of a creator god sort of thingie and that he taught rebirth, atheist can work within a Buddhist context.

[QUOTE=brburl;264910]Maybe classifying yourself as atheist isnt the best thing for you. Since you seem to be open to the ideas of reincarnation and things, which make great assumptions about the afterlife. Perhaps you are more accuratly a agnostic or maybe pagan or something...you just might not be a fan of the Christian God. or one higher power that seems to rain on your parade.

Given the Buddha's rejection of a creator god sort of thingie and that he taught rebirth, atheist can work within a Buddhist context.[/QUOTE]

sure. but considering the main reasons behind atheism is this apparent impossibility with any sort of spirtual afterlife, or any supernatural reality at all, leaves to question why an atheist would believe in such a notion as past lives or transmigration of a soul.

Doesnt make much sense. But people can see the world as they see fit, and you could even be an atheist that believed in God, if you so saw it that way, i guess.;)

but considering the main reasons behind atheism is this apparent impossibility with any sort of spirtual afterlife, or any supernatural reality at all, leaves to question why an atheist would believe in such a notion as past lives or transmigration of a soul.

Well, it is a good thing that the Buddha did not teach something as impossible as “transmigration of a soul" or as impossible as an omniscient, omnipotent eternal god sort of thing.

Atheism can be more sophisticated and nuanced than the picture you are presenting.